The Brookhaven leader., 1887-10-20


her territorial minority, even before
she attained unto the dignity of state
hood, the sale of liquor has been sub
jected to statutory restrictions. ! dc
not see, therefore, according to yOul
definitions and admissions, that tho
doctrine of personal inalienable rights
has any place in the discussion of the
sale of intoxicating liquors. To USE
your own earnest words uttered in the
Senate of the United States, | must
say, show idle is this prating about
natural rights as standing above the
obligations of civil government"
"Whenever private right becomes
injurious, noxious or offensive to the
public good, the private right becomes
subordinate to the public right which
community has to demand protec-
ton thereform." Acts, innocent them
selves, acquire from circumstances
the quality of injuring the pub
lie. TO carry arms about ones per-
son for purposes of self-protection is
in itself an innocent act. But when
citizens generally do the same thing,
the tendency is to create disorder and
cause the unjustifiable taking of hu-
man life; the State, therefore, pro-
hibits the carrying of dangerous
weapons concealed upon ones person.
So it may be said of the traffic in
intoxicating liquors, that notwith-
standing it may be innocent itself, il
may nevertheless, by force of circum-
stance, be injurious to the public well
fare and dangerous to the public peace
And if this be so, the private right OF
sale has become subordinate to the
public right of protection. We con-
clude, therefore, that no man has Il
natural or civil right to indulge in Il
traffic which renders life and property
insecure, which promotes immortality
and creates public paupers to he sup
ported at the States expense. If il
appears that the traffic in Intoxicating
liquors does all this, the justice of the
principle that would prohibit and
stamp ont the miseable lr;iiic cannot
be denied"
And the Supreme Court of the
United States, through Chief Justice
fancy, affirmed the same doctrine in
these words: "If any State deems the
retail and internal traffic in ardent
spirits injurious to its citizens and
calculated to produce idleness, vice
or debauchery, see nothing in the
constitution of the United States
to prevent it from regulating or re-
stricting the traffic, or from prohibit
ing it altogether, if it thinks proper
Judge Cooley, above quoted says:
"The same laws also have been sus-
tanned when the conflict with state
constitutions or with fundamental
principles has been raised. The SUI
preme court of Mississippi says: The
state may deal with the subject by alb
solute prohibition or by regulations
And from similar authorities could
pile Pelion upon Ossa. In face OF
these authoritative and accepted in
terpretatiOns of Fundamental princi-
pies, urreferencest to "the sacrificing
of personal liberty and moral re-
sponsibility," and to ''the substitution
of forces for the free will" are, tC
use your own phrase, but "irrelevant
catch words"
The only question for the people to
determine, precedent to the adoption
of restriction or prohibition is, as to
the evil effects of the liquor traffic
upon society. But that is beyond
all controversy. The language OF
Judge Pitman is the experience of all
criminal judges: at is the universal
ally of evil; the universal antagonisn
of good" Judges, commonwealth
attorneys and other civil officers, with
voice of startling unanimity, testify
to the criminal results of the liquor
traffic.
Allow me to say that your views o.
"local option" to my mind. are un
tenable and lack logical consistency
In your open letter to me you favor
local option if confned,,to narrow lin
it's and with a sufficient majority to as
sumo that the measure rests on the
consent of the governed In the Tex
as letter you alphabetically character
lied it as the wooden horse in which {
disguised enemy to state sovereignty al
the guardian of individual liberty
was introduced. The difference be
tween these two utterances may b,
more apparent than real. The "wood
en- horse" is inoffensive if confined t.
narrow limits, but dangerous if allow
ed ground for wider Operations. Th'
principle of prohibition the suppress
sion of the liquor traffic by a majorit!
voice of the people-you, therefore
admit. So far we are agreed. Blu
how or why you would contne its oper
alton to "narrow limits" is logical!
not SO clear. Lhe doctrine of loca
option is not one of square yards o
miles. If the sovereign people of
county by majority vote decide not =